When a company is small and young, work is often done in a seemingly ad hoc fashion. People briefly discuss and then do what appears to be the best solution for the task at hand. As the company is small and most people in the company have a good idea what is important and what is not, this approach tends to work quite well. Sometimes, a wrong decision may be made but in general, this sort of ad hoc approach works quite well.

In the previous post, we completed our analysis of the projection Steve made by looking at some unresolved side effects and questions that would come with such a future.

In the previous post, we looked at the likely short- and mid-term consequences if Steve’s projection should become reality. We saw a bit disturbed that most likely the only winners of that projection would be the providers of agentic AI solutions and their investors while everyone else would be on the loser side of the game.

In the previous post, we looked at the want side regarding Steve’s projection and the forces they trigger. We took off the rose-colored glasses and tried to have an unembellished look at these forces even if the things we saw, were a bit more gloomy and controversial than we would have liked it.

In the previous post, we looked at Steve Yegge’s post where he made a projection from the vibe coding of today to controlling AI agent fleets in the near future that take over all coding reliably. Pondering this projection as a possible future, we realized that this future is not what we need as our actual problems in software development do not lie in a lack of developer productivity (or to be more precise: developer efficiency) but…